Introduction: differen t methodologies

Systems thinking has arisen from a recognition of the complexity of behaviour in organisations and groups of people, and in assemblages of both man- made and natural physical components. The wish to predict and control the

behaviour of systems has been a stimulus to developing the analytical methodologies which are grouped under the systems umbrella (Open Systems Group, (eds.), 1972,

10).

Although systems thinking implies the study not just of information systems but of the general functioning of organisations (Handy, 1981 Ch.11 ; Vickers, 1981), the term 'systems analysis' has a particular place in information technology. Here, it means analysing information needs and translating them into a specification for a (normally computerised) information system. Information systems analysis embraces a variety of methods (Hawryszkiewycz, 1988, Ch. 15; Layzell and Loucopoulos 1987, 22-28; Willcocks and Mason, 1987, Ch.4). These can be grouped into two broad areas. 'Hard' methodologies are related to Operational Research. They embody a linear, logical approach from problem definition through systems design to implementation.

'Soft' approaches recognise that the needs of the organisation are not necessarily the ones which appear obvious; they focus on the need to understand the organisation, its people, and its purpose before designing its information flows (Willcocks and Mason, 1987, Ch.4). One methodology, 'Multiview', explicitly combines the two strands (Avison and Wood-Harper, 1990).

Hard, o r structured, analysis

These methods take as their starting point a defined 'problem' or task in information handling or processing, which it is thought can be solved or eased by improving the handling of data and information, especially by using computers (Hughes 1984; Naughton 1983, 7-10). A t the outset, a definition of the task and of the desired results is agreed between the organisation or individual commissioning the work, and the consultancy or employee undertaking it. A series of defined

analytical steps, often using preprinted forms to assist in quality control, is followed in a prescribed order, with the object of producing a system (or choice of systems) to gather the data for and produce the defined information, or expedite the identified procedures, as efficiently as possible (Willcocks and Mason, 1987, Fig. 4.1;

Layzell and Loucopoulos, 1987, 22-31).

A well-known variant on hard systems approaches, cybernetics, is expounded chiefly by Stafford Beer. His work gained such credence that he was summoned by Salvador Allende to apply his concepts to the running of a whole country - Chile. Ashby's "law of requisite variety", much cited by Beer, must be respected in any successfully operating system. His concepts are fully developed in The heart o f the enterprise and other works (Beer, 1972, 1979, 1985).

'Hard' systems methods are by far the best established. These structured methods do go straight to the point. Where the objectives of the system are well- defined, and a limited area of operations is to be tackled, then it may be exactly the tool required, for example, for designing systems for controlling production, manufacture, bookings, or accounting.

On the other hand, despite the impression that is gained of extremely organised and predictable operation, there are many examples of failure when structured methods have been employed^.

Chapter 4: Analysing the system

'S o f t ' analysis

There are a number of soft approaches (e.g. the socio-technical approach, Mumford, 1983; the soft systems approach, Checkland, 1981). In soft analysis, the initial assumption is that the situation or problem is not obvious (Checkland,

1981 ; Naughton 1983). Instead of focussing on 'the problem', the first step is to understand the operation of the organisation itself as a ^stem . ChecWand's Soft Systems Methodology appears to be the most widely used and published variant. The essence of this is to imagine a relevant abstract metasystem and contrast it with the real situation, thus gaining insight into what the problems really are, and how they may be addressed. The participation of those involved in the situation is essential, since the objective is to bring about real, desirable change. The methodology is inherently Just as rigorous as hard analysis (Checkland and Scholes, 1990, 10), but takes a wider and more creative view.

This methodology should prove useful in public sector situations

generally, where objectives are complex and where users are unsure what exactly they require from the information system. However, soft analysis was actually developed for use in management consultancy; it seems presently not to be widely used in connection with information systems^. There may be problems of

credibility. Information ^ste m s consultants are likely to be called in when large, expensive, complex systems are contemplated. Despite their well documented failures, hard methods, particularly "Structured Systems And Design Methodology (SSADM), have gained such a stamp of approval from their adoption as the official method of choice by government agencies that these will be the methods such consultants will normally offer. Soft systems analysis also demands a real commitment of time and enthusiasm from members of the organisation; since a primary aim is to be a stimulus and means to learning and changing perceptions, those who are to benefit must set aside the time to do so. Willcocks and Mason (1987, Ch.4) identify a further hazard: in a soft analysis, the view of the more powerful interest groups is likely to predominate. The full support and cooperation of the organisation's senior management is necessary. Otherwise, conclusions may simply be found unpalatable and recommendations not be implemented.

2 Checkland and Scholes (1991) cite only one article dealing with this application;